🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8015@ncar.ucar.edu> thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) writes:
>In article <3014@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>|>Note that you have to say "smacks of censorship", because it isn't
>|>in fact censorship.  Moreover, "political reasons" aren't necessarily

>If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft.
>Therefore removing it is indeed censorship. 

No it isn't.  Editors edit.  It's not enough just that a draft was
changed.

>I find it hard to believe that the book in question was not used in some
>manner during the development of GAWK. 

What you find hard to believe and evidence are two different things.

>The issue isn't simply whether it was used to prepare the GAWK manual,
>but whether it was used as part of the development of GAWK code. 

Why?  If I learned about AWK w/o any reference to the book -- perhaps
from another book -- I could cite *that* book.  It's only an academic
convention (if that) that the original source, rather than (or in
addition to) the one actually used, be cited.  Ditto if the author of
the GAWK manual learned about GAWK from another source, such as a
person.  If the other source used the AWK book or writes something
using knowledge so derived, then that other source much cite the AWK
book.

>Now I find it hard it to believe that GAWK was truely reverse-
>engineered in "clean-room" fashion. 

Who said it was?  Maybe they talked to the designers.

>Most likely the developers have read said book in order to further
>their understanding of awk. 

Most likely isn't enough.